[EL] What a Shock!
Mark Schmitt
schmitt.mark at gmail.com
Wed Apr 9 21:12:05 PDT 2014
I disagree with Mr. Bopp, Steve Hoersting, Brad Smith and the CCP crowd
90% of the time, and I often vow to resist engaging. Nonetheless, I’m
very appreciative of their contributions here and hope they continue. I
recognize that sometimes the tone of these pop-up ideological fights
might seem out of place on a list that is mostly meant to disseminate
news and practical information for election lawyers and academics. But
I don’t know of any other forum where this kind of engagement and debate
across a wide spectrum of views on election law and campaign finance
takes place. It seems like an accidental but valuable aspect of the
list. I hope that those who are not interested can find a way to ignore
it or put up with it. (Or better, join the conversation.)
From:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of
Douglas Carver
Sent: Wednesday, April 9, 2014 4:32 PM
To:JBoppjr at aol.com
Cc:law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] What a Shock!
Jim, I know plenty of campaign finance reformers. Some of them agree
with you at times, you may be surprised to know. Very often, most often,
even, they disagree with you, usually pretty strongly. But none of them
want to shut you up.
One of the things I most value about this listserve -- and why I am so
grateful to Rick and all of the others who keep it running and
participate in its dialogue -- is that there is free and frank
discussion of the issues. So thanks to all who make it happen.
Douglas Carver
Albuquerque, NM
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 1:32 PM, <JBoppjr at aol.com> wrote:
>As I have explained, which started this all, "reformers" want to use
>campaign finance laws to shut up their opponents so they can get their
>liberal agenda through. Comments by them after McCutcheon have made
>this crystal clear, as well as has Breyer's dissent. So I am not at
>all surprised that they want to shut me up too. Many people think that
>disagreeing with them is disagreeable.
>
>
>
>Rick, I am glad you may not be in that camp. Jim Bopp
>
>
>
>In a message dated 4/9/2014 2:47:55 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
>rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:
>
>>Jim,
>>
>>If I really wanted to discourage you from commenting about my views on
>>the listserv, I would have removed you from the listserv, which many
>>people have been urging me to do for your lack of civility for some
>>time.
>>
>>(More emails to that effect came in today. A few choice quotes: "I’d
>>move to get rid of Jim Bopp from the list-serve. .... It’s tiresome.
>> He clearly can’t disagree without being disagreeable. Let him find
>>another forum for his snark. I’d prefer not to get any more emails
>>from him. And I don’t even necessarily disagree with some of his
>>positions. I can’t be alone in this assessment." "Just curious, is
>>there a way to tone down the constant snark/invective he (and many of
>>the CCP folks) constantly post? It is ironic because, even as a
>>reformer, I could take their arguments more seriously if they weren’t
>>so obnoxious.").
>>
>>Instead, despite your intemperate comments on the listserv I have
>>engaged with you, just like I have debated Brad Smith and Floyd Abrams
>>with whom I also disagree.
>>
>>Rick
>>
>>On 4/9/14, 10:48 AM, JBoppjr at aol.com wrote:
>>
>>> Fair enough. I have no interest in long debates either but it is
>>>also true that these fundamentally different world views continue to
>>>be advocated for and currently debated.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I thought I raised a new twist on it in my post, in response to
>>>yours, which is the fact that reformers regularly make dire
>>>predictions that almost never come true. Your post wants to hold the
>>>"deregulators" into account for their predictions and I was simply
>>>holding "reformers" to the same. Their predictions about CU were
>>>wrong, they should be held in account for it and as a result their
>>>current predictions should be viewed with more skepticism.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But of course you and anyone is free not to defend their opinions
>>>if they choose. But that won't discourage me from commenting on them,
>>>which honestly is what I think you are trying to do. Jim Bopp
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>PS And I seriously doubt that anyone would think that you would agree
>>>with even my non-outlandish and non-snarky statements.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>In a message dated 4/9/2014 1:16:03 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
>>>rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:
>>>
>>>>Jim,
>>>>
>>>>We have fundamentally different world views as well as assessments
>>>>of the empirical evidence. We have had a number of exchanges on the
>>>>list and elsewhere over the years about these conflicting normative
>>>>views and views of the evidence, and I don't think that repeating
>>>>that debate on the listserv would be a good use of anyone's time. It
>>>>is not that I don't think you are unworthy of debate. It is that it
>>>>all has been said before. I am not sure if our CATO live debate from
>>>>a few years ago is still on the Internet. I'd be happy to reprise
>>>>that debate at some point in the future. But back and forth sniping
>>>>on the listserv seems a waste of time.
>>>>
>>>>The fullest explication of my views on campaign finance appears in
>>>>my 2003 book, The Supreme Court and Election Law. You can read the
>>>>chapter on campaign finance if you want to understand my full
>>>>views---though they have evolved in some significant ways since
>>>>then. I am planning likely another book length treatment to make my
>>>>full case for a political equality view of the First Amendment---one
>>>>which differs, by the way, from Justice Breyer's dissent in some
>>>>important ways. I hope when I can make my sustained argument it will
>>>>convince many people who might be on the fence on these issues. I
>>>>certainly don't expect it to convince you even in a book length
>>>>treatment (much less in a short listserv response).
>>>>
>>>>Of course my views expressed on the blog or elsewhere are fair
>>>>targets for you, and you can respond however you wish. The reason I
>>>>posted a short note in response to you was that I did not want to
>>>>leave anyone new to the list with the impression that I agreed with
>>>>your outlandish and snarky statements. Beyond that, you have new
>>>>lawsuits to bring (and many to win, unfortunately in my view) and I
>>>>have a book to write.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Rick
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On 4/9/14, 10:03 AM, JBoppjr at aol.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Well then I will await your much larger work anxiously. I can raise
>>>>>questions about your posts and you defend yourself by citing
>>>>>"larger works."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You have said repeatedly, when you occasionally respond to one of
>>>>>my posts, that "I'm not going to get into another long debate with
>>>>>you on the internet." I don't know if you think I am just not
>>>>>worthy of debating you or you don't want to debate in public so
>>>>>others can evaluate your arguments. Or perhaps you prefer just to
>>>>>express your opinions everyday but are above defending them. The
>>>>>Oracles of Delphi felt the same way. Either way it is an odd brush
>>>>>off by someone with so many opinions and one who so aggressively
>>>>>puts them out to the public. But I guess some are just too good to
>>>>>be soiled by debate with us commoners.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh, and by the way, just because I responded I am still "not going
>>>>>to get into another long debate with you on the internet." How
>>>>>about a short debate instead? I have more lawsuits to work on. Jim
>>>>>Bopp
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>In a message dated 4/9/2014 11:18:12 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
>>>>>rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Jim,
>>>>>>I'm not going to get into another long debate with you on the
>>>>>>internet. But depending upon how one defines the problem, the sky
>>>>>>actually is already falling, and the election of Obama does not
>>>>>>prove that the system is working. I've made a number of points
>>>>>>about the problem of legislative skew in this piece
>>>>>>(http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/print/article/lobbying-rent-seeking-and-constitution)
>>>>>>and I've begun work on a much larger work which will eventually
>>>>>>respond to these points.
>>>>>>Rick
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On 4/9/14, 5:55 AM, JBoppjr at aol.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Regarding Rick's comment under "What a Shock!:"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>P.S. Someone should collect all the statements from the
>>>>>>>deregulationists who said getting rid of aggregate limits is no
>>>>>>>big deal and it wouldn’t lead to multi-million dollar checks and
>>>>>>>the emergence of soft money.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I would but my hard drive is already full of all the Chicken
>>>>>>>Little claims of imminent doom by the campaign finance
>>>>>>>"reformers" after almost every Court decision since Buckley.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Just to mention one, Citizens United was decided in 2010. The
>>>>>>>Chicken Littles said that corporations would own all the
>>>>>>>politicians. Obama was reelected in 2012. Was he owned by
>>>>>>>corporations? Opps. And the Chicken Littles have not even
>>>>>>>apologized to Obama. They just press on with more dire
>>>>>>>predictions. Jim Bopp
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In a message dated 4/8/2014 11:47:01 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
>>>>>>>rhasen at law.uci.edu writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Tom Edsall on McCutcheon
>>>>>>>>Posted on April 8, 2014 8:27 pm by Rick Hasen
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Important NYT opinion column.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Tom links to my SCOTUSBlog post, “Does the Chief Justice not
>>>>>>>>Understand Politics, or Does He Understand it all too Well?“
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It’s not every day I’m called more cynical than Richard Posner.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Posted in campaign finance, Supreme Court
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>“Miss. preparing to use new voter ID law”
>>>>>>>>Posted on April 8, 2014 8:00 pm by Rick Hasen
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Gannett reports.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Posted in election administration, The Voting Wars
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>“Blacks and Early Voting, in Ohio and Wisconsin”
>>>>>>>>Posted on April 8, 2014 7:56 pm by Rick Hasen
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>NYT letter to the editor from NAACP Ohio and Wisconsin leaders.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Posted in election administration, The Voting Wars, voter
>>>>>>>>registration
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>NYT Letters to the Editor on David Brooks McCutcheon Column
>>>>>>>>Posted on April 8, 2014 7:55 pm by Rick Hasen
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Posted in campaign finance, Supreme Court
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>How Low Will Dick Morris Go?
>>>>>>>>Posted on April 8, 2014 7:53 pm by Rick Hasen
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>This low.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Didn’t realize he was a member of the fraudulent fraud squad.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Posted in fraudulent fraud squad, The Voting Wars
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What a Shock!: “John Roberts Gets the Parties Started”
>>>>>>>>Posted on April 8, 2014 7:43 pm by Rick Hasen
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Politico reports:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Insiders are dreaming up how to maximize a recent Supreme Court
>>>>>>>>>ruling that frees up some big donors to give even more.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>A prominent idea: create a new class of donors who contribute a
>>>>>>>>>total of six- or seven-figures to each of three party
>>>>>>>>>committees and spread cash to endangered lawmakers. In
>>>>>>>>>exchange, the big-money givers would get something of an “all
>>>>>>>>>access pass” that comes with perks from the big three national
>>>>>>>>>committees, like face time with top officials.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Of course Roberts told us that this wouldn’t happen, or that the
>>>>>>>>FEC or Congress would easily fix it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yeah right.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>And don’t delude yourselves. Many Democratic party operatives
>>>>>>>>are delighted with McCutcheon.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>P.S. Someone should collect all the statements from the
>>>>>>>>deregulationists who said getting rid of aggregate limits is no
>>>>>>>>big deal and it wouldn’t lead to multi-million dollar checks and
>>>>>>>>the emergence of soft money.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Posted in campaign finance, Supreme Court
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Two Panels on Voting Rights May 2 at LA Law Library as Part of
>>>>>>>>Law Week
>>>>>>>>Posted on April 8, 2014 7:00 pm by Rick Hasen
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Looking forward to participating in this:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Posted in voting, Voting Rights Act
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>“Government Brief Cites McCutcheon Case In Defending FEC’s
>>>>>>>>Requirements for PACs”
>>>>>>>>Posted on April 8, 2014 6:51 pm by Rick Hasen
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Bloomberg BNA: “Supreme Court precedents, including the court’s
>>>>>>>>most recent campaign finance ruling in McCutcheon v. Fed.
>>>>>>>>Election Comm’n, consistently have supported requirements for
>>>>>>>>public disclosure of campaign money, government attorneys argued
>>>>>>>>in a brief filed with the high court (Free Speech v. FEC, U.S.,
>>>>>>>>No. 13-772, brief filed 4/4/14).”
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Posted in campaign finance, Supreme Court
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>“How to Clean Up American Elections”
>>>>>>>>Posted on April 8, 2014 6:46 pm by Rick Hasen
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Ganesh Sitaraman writes for Politico.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Posted in campaign finance, Supreme Court
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>“RNC chairman: Strike down all contribution limits”
>>>>>>>>Posted on April 8, 2014 6:44 pm by Rick Hasen
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That’s more like it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Posted in campaign finance, Supreme Court
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>“Stay issued on subpoenas in NC election law case “
>>>>>>>>Posted on April 8, 2014 1:31 pm by Rick Hasen
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>AP reports.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Posted in The Voting Wars
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>“The Hounding of Brendan Eich Gives New Cover to Defenders of
>>>>>>>>Dark Money”
>>>>>>>>Posted on April 8, 2014 1:30 pm by Rick Hasen
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Important piece from Alec MacGillis.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Posted in campaign finance, Supreme Court
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>“McConnell Doubts Individual Campaign Finance Limits Will Go
>>>>>>>>Away”
>>>>>>>>Posted on April 8, 2014 1:20 pm by Rick Hasen
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Roll Call reports. I don’t think he’s the only one calling the
>>>>>>>>shots on this though.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Posted in campaign finance, Supreme Court
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Demos Explainer on McCutcheon
>>>>>>>>Posted on April 8, 2014 1:03 pm by Rick Hasen
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Guide for the Perplexed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Posted in campaign finance, Supreme Court
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>“Judge Rules Delaware Disclosure Law Unconstitutional”
>>>>>>>>Posted on April 8, 2014 12:58 pm by Rick Hasen
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>CCP: “A federal court today issued an orderbarring enforcement
>>>>>>>>of a recently adopted Delaware law that would have forced a
>>>>>>>>group that publishes non-partisan voter guides to violate its
>>>>>>>>members’ privacy.”
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Posted in campaign finance
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>“Rich People Will Always Beat Campaign Finance Restrictions”
>>>>>>>>Posted on April 8, 2014 12:55 pm by Rick Hasen
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Steve Chapman writes for Reason.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Posted in campaign finance, Supreme Court
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>“Shelby and Section 3: Pulling the Voting Rights Act’s Pocket
>>>>>>>>Trigger to Protect Voting Rights after Shelby County v. Holder”
>>>>>>>>Posted on April 8, 2014 12:51 pm by Rick Hasen
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Paul Wiley has posted this draft student note on SSRN
>>>>>>>>(forthcoming, Washington and Lee Law Review). Here is the
>>>>>>>>abstract:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder
>>>>>>>>>presents voting rights advocates with a difficult challenge:
>>>>>>>>>finding an effective substitute for the preclearance regime
>>>>>>>>>struck down by the Court. The best possible alternative may
>>>>>>>>>live within the Voting Rights Act itself in Section 3(c)’s
>>>>>>>>>“pocket trigger.” Section 3(c) permits a federal court to
>>>>>>>>>retain jurisdiction and preclear a jurisdiction’s changes to
>>>>>>>>>its voting procedures upon a finding of a constitutional
>>>>>>>>>violation. By relating more closely to current conditions in a
>>>>>>>>>specific locality, Section 3(c) preclearance avoids many of the
>>>>>>>>>problems the Court identified in NAMUDNO and Shelby County.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>This Note analyzes the history of Voting Rights Act litigation
>>>>>>>>>and suggests a more expansive use of Section 3(c) preclearance
>>>>>>>>>to continue federal oversight of election procedures.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Posted in Supreme Court, Voting Rights Act, VRAA
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>All My McCutcheon Commentary in One Place
>>>>>>>>Posted on April 8, 2014 10:47 am by Rick Hasen
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Courtesy of @UCILaw:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The GuardianDaily Journal (PDF)ReutersSCOTUSBlogSlate
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Posted in campaign finance, Supreme Court
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>“McCutcheon and Corruption in America”
>>>>>>>>Posted on April 8, 2014 9:13 am by Rick Hasen
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Harvard University Press blog:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In Corruption in America: From Benjamin Franklin’s Snuff Box to
>>>>>>>>>Citizens United, Teachout reminds us that the particularly
>>>>>>>>>demanding notion of corruption represented by that early gifts
>>>>>>>>>rule is central to American law and democracy. This notion of
>>>>>>>>>corruption, she explains, is not limited to the blatant bribes
>>>>>>>>>and explicit quid pro quo to which Chief Justice Roberts
>>>>>>>>>referred in this week’s McCutcheon v. FEC ruling, and Justice
>>>>>>>>>Kennedy in Citizens United before that. The foundational
>>>>>>>>>American understanding of corruption encompassed emotional,
>>>>>>>>>internal, psychological relationships in an effort to protect
>>>>>>>>>the morality of interactions between official representatives
>>>>>>>>>of government and private parties, foreign parties, or other
>>>>>>>>>politicians.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Posted in campaign finance, Supreme Court
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Marty Lederman Goes Into the Weeds on Standing and Ripeness
>>>>>>>>Issues in Susan B. Anthony False Speech SCOTUS Case
>>>>>>>>Posted on April 8, 2014 9:00 am by Rick Hasen
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>A very helpful primer, at SCOTUSBlog.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Posted in campaigns, Supreme Court
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>--
>>>>>>>>Rick Hasen
>>>>>>>>Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
>>>>>>>>UC Irvine School of Law
>>>>>>>>401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
>>>>>>>>Irvine, CA 92697-8000
>>>>>>>>949.824.3072 - office
>>>>>>>>949.824.0495 - fax
>>>>>>>>rhasen at law.uci.edu
>>>>>>>>http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
>>>>>>>>http://electionlawblog.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>Law-election mailing list
>>>>>>>>Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>>>>>>>>http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>--
>>>>>>>>Rick Hasen
>>>>>>>>Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
>>>>>>>>UC Irvine School of Law
>>>>>>>>401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
>>>>>>>>Irvine, CA 92697-8000
>>>>>>>>949.824.3072 - office
>>>>>>>>949.824.0495 - fax
>>>>>>>>rhasen at law.uci.edu
>>>>>>>>http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
>>>>>>>>http://electionlawblog.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>--
>>>>>>>>Rick Hasen
>>>>>>>>Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
>>>>>>>>UC Irvine School of Law
>>>>>>>>401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
>>>>>>>>Irvine, CA 92697-8000
>>>>>>>>949.824.3072 - office
>>>>>>>>949.824.0495 - fax
>>>>>>>>rhasen at law.uci.edu
>>>>>>>>http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
>>>>>>>>http://electionlawblog.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>--
>>>>>>>>Rick Hasen
>>>>>>>>Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
>>>>>>>>UC Irvine School of Law
>>>>>>>>401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
>>>>>>>>Irvine, CA 92697-8000
>>>>>>>>949.824.3072 - office
>>>>>>>>949.824.0495 - fax
>>>>>>>>rhasen at law.uci.edu
>>>>>>>>http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
>>>>>>>>http://electionlawblog.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>Law-election mailing list
>>>>>>>>Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>>>>>>>>http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>--
>>>>>>>>Dilexi iustitiam et odivi iniquitatem, propterea morior in
>>>>>>>>exilio.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>(I have loved justice and hated iniquity, therefore I die in
>>>>>>>>exile.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -- the last words of Saint Pope Gregory VII (d. 1085)
>>>>>>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140410/1b284d7f/attachment.html>
View list directory